Scoping review to assess the effectiveness of government-funded and population-based physical activity initiatives in Australia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health benefits of physical activity play a vital public health role in the prevention and management of chronic disease and other health conditions (Halpin, Morales-Suárez-Varela & Martin-Moreno 2010; Thornton et al. 2016). Unfortunately, less than half of Australians are meeting the recommended physical activity level. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] 2021). As such, there is a need for population-based approaches that can reach many Australians affordably and effectively. Government agencies commonly use evidence-based practice to improve public health outcomes (Titler 2008), and a scoping review will be conducted to examine government-funded population-based physical activity initiatives to understand their impacts, methods, gaps, and limitations. Moreover, we will gain extensive knowledge about the physical activity initiatives carried out in Australia and how they have been evaluated. Therefore, this scoping review will explore the effectiveness of government-funded population-based physical activity initiatives in Australia. References: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2021a, Australian Burden of Disease Study 2018: Interactive data on risk factor burden, viewed 03, June, 2022, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/abds-2018-interactive-data-risk-factors/contents/physical-inactivity Halpin, HA, Morales-Suárez-Varela, MM & Martin-Moreno, JM 2010, 'Chronic disease prevention and the new public health', Public Health Reviews, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 120-154. DOI: 10.1007/BF03391595. SA Health 2022a, Wellbeing SA, viewed 08, August,2022, https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/wellbeing+sa/wellbeing+sa SA Health 2022b, The Physical Activity in Nature Action Plan 2021-2024, viewed 04,June,2022, https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/ South Australian Population Health Survey (SAPHS) 2019, Annual report 2020 - Adults, viewed 10 September 2022, https://das7nagdq54z0.cloudfront.net/downloads/SAPHS/SAPHS-2020-Annual-Report-Adults.pdf Thornton, JS, Frémont, P, Khan, K, Poirier, P, Fowles, J, Wells, GD & Frankovich, RJ 2016, 'Physical activity prescription: a critical opportunity to address a modifiable risk factor for the prevention and management of chronic disease: a position statement by the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine', British journal of sports medicine, vol. 50, no. 18, pp. 1109-1114. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096291.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.309 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".